Tensions rise in S. China Sea; Philippines sends warship

Cody2 wrote:
Part of me wants to know what exactly the PI ship thinks it can do? Last time I looked through the listings for the PI Navy, about all they could do aginst anyone, excepting a poorly equiped drug runner, was die with honor. The other part of me remembers that the US is a strong PI ally, so I guess shooting a PI ship equal war with the US?

There is no way this can end well.

Cody,

You do realize that the old Philippine Navy warship BRP Rajah Humabon, which was the one sent, will be retiring soon? Its replacement will be a recently retired Hamilton class cutter, recently handed over and re-named BRP Gregorio Del Pilar, as the thread below shows:

It has been embarrassed too obviously in the last one year with the trawler incidents and the ban on rare earths exports by China.That particular move which was openly aimed at the Japanese electronics industry (the main engine of the Japanese economy) proved that the Chinese govt would not hesitate to use naked blackmail to get its way. The fact that the Japanese had to accede to the blackmail only reinforced Chinese adventurism and unsettled the other nations. If after all, the 2nd largest economy of the world could be treated like this what hope for the others ?

Japan would therefore be looking for an opportunity to restore the status quo ante bellum and show China its place. It is a pity that it had to be struck with that terrifying earthquake and tsunami and now its attention is focussed totally on internal rehabilitation. This I am sure has emboldened China to step on the pressure.

By choosing the Philippines (with its US connection) are they actually entering into a background confrontation with USA. Are they daring it to come openly in support of PI and therefore be shrilly accused of interfering in a simple bilateral dispute and unnecessarily raising temperatures ? They may be calculating that with the US involved in a potentially messy withdrawal in Afghanistan, a still sticky situation in Iraq, a potential minefield in Libya they would not have the resources nor the will to get into another crisis for a few benighted coral atolls ?

The US, they feel, may make a few noises, a few demonstrations but then will have to hint to Manila to come to some accommodation with China. If in the meantime there can be a few major Taliban attacks in Afghanistan (not improbable considering that China leans on Pakistan who controls the Taliban) that would be all the more better in concentrating everyone's minds wonderfully elsewhere.

I would not be surprising if in the future a Vietnam-Japanese understanding doesnot come about. .

Was not the USS George Washington in these waters for quite some time ? If still the Chinese went ahead with their derring do, says volumes for either their confidence or their daring !

Incidentally the Chinese action to block rare earth exports had an interesting after effect. India too has these valuable minerals ( Ilemnite, Rutile, Zircon, Monazite,Silimanite etc) in its geology which till 1997-98 were being exploited by a government company called Indian Rare Earths Ltd established in 1950. Since this was an obvious strategic sector it was a government monopoly & operations continued even if the production was limited and didnot make commercial sense. ( The last accounts show a sale figure of USD 15 mio & a PBT of USD 2 mio).

However post 1997-98 the Chinese flooded the markets with their production so completely that it was decided to discontinue mining and only concentrate on refining imported ore. This continued till the Chinese action against Japan, wherein it was decided quietly to resume mining and expand E & P to reduce dependency on imports.

It so happens that within a very short time after this decision a discreet approach by Tokyo to New Delhi whether it would be amenable for bilateral trade in these materials and offers of technical assistance for E & P were made, both of which were equally discreetly accepted. Such trade is now it seems going very nicely,the mining efforts have also resumed and new sources have been discovered on the east coast of India.

Of course the Indian exports cannot match the Chinese capacity but it is now providing an useful buffer to Japan.

Not relevant to the main post, but a digression which I thought members could find diverting.

Global bullyman's assessment of the situation seems much closer to being realistic than some others'. Japan has her plate full with a massive natural disaster recovery operation, a nuclear disaster of the first order and a depressed economy. The trawler clash proved that Japan would retreat from any confrontation with China over disputed territory.

Japan will not aggravate China with a military alliance with Vietnam. It would be meaningless anyway because the Japanese would not turn up. A commercial relationship, maybe.

Under the Obama Administration, defence policy has been at least as assertive as under the previous administration but they are not much interested in coming to the aid of the Philippines in any competition with China. If the US was at all interested I would be expecting them to be arming a proxy. If the proxies in this situation are Japan and Australia, the situation is laughable.

Japan and Australia want to get along with China. China would have to be threatening the national sovereignty of Japan or Australia for them to assume an active military role in a confronation over territory between the Philippines and China. If they had a choice, they would be sneaky. Proving which nation's submarine torpedoed what would keep the Chinese running in circles for years.

But as I say, China is not landing troops on Australia or Japan's drilling rigs. They do not have to because we would willingly sell them the rig or the product.

jim3au wrote:
Global bullyman's assessment of the situation seems much closer to being realistic than some others'. Japan has her plate full with a massive natural disaster recovery operation, a nuclear disaster of the first order and a depressed economy. The trawler clash proved that Japan would retreat from any confrontation with China over disputed territory.

Japan will not aggravate China with a military alliance with Vietnam. It would be meaningless anyway because the Japanese would not turn up. A commercial relationship, maybe.

Under the Obama Administration, defence policy has been at least as assertive as under the previous administration but they are not much interested in coming to the aid of the Philippines in any competition with China. If the US was at all interested I would be expecting them to be arming a proxy. If the proxies in this situation are Japan and Australia, the situation is laughable.

Japan and Australia want to get along with China. China would have to be threatening the national sovereignty of Japan or Australia for them to assume an active military role in a confronation over territory between the Philippines and China. If they had a choice, they would be sneaky. Proving which nation's submarine torpedoed what would keep the Chinese running in circles for years.

But as I say, China is not landing troops on Australia or Japan's drilling rigs. They do not have to because we would willingly sell them the rig or the product.

Japan is important. If nothing else, it has the largest economy, and probably the most powerful millitary in East Asia, other than China. If China can sufficently cower Japan to render them worthless as a force aginst China, the ballance of power in the region will be strongly in favor of the Chinese. It's clear that Japan wasn't willing to stand up to China in previous incidents. If that continues, then stoping China's influance in East Asia becomes much more questionable than I origionaly thought.

An equaly important question however is how is all of this being seen by the other Asian countries? Is Japan's recent diplomatic flops seens as revenge for Japans actions and arrogance in the past, and cheered by other countreis? Or is it seen as China establishing a peeking order with themselves on top, and everyone else on bottom. Right now it appears that China is making diplomatic incidents with just about everyone in East Asia. If all of the nations decided that China is simply abusing everyone, they will be much more likly to work together.

Honestly, Chinese forgien policy will be critical in building up any anti-chinese alliance. First China is going to have to alleniate all of the powers, and then the alliance will be built, not the other way around. If China deals with it's counterparts in treaties that allow everyone to claim "fair deals", then it will be rather unlikly that any anti-China alliance will be possible. Currently, China appears to refuse to do that, making such an alliance more possible. The parrallels to the alliances that encircled Germany before 1914 appear compelling.

It is instructive to note that practically all countries of any substance in Asia and their allies either do not like China (due to its recent behaviour) or are neutral ( but here also it would not take much to bring them on the other side for e.g Malaysia and Indonesia would strongly oppose any pan-Chinese rhetoric which may agitate their substantial Chinese minorities and resource rich Siberia is Russia's weak point). The only allies won by hardworking Chinese diplomacy surprisingly turn out to be all basket cases or nut cases !!

Makes one begin to doubt the much touted far sighted imperial and Confucian wisdom which it seems is the monopoly of Chinese state craft.

It does seem that China has amply fulfilled Cody 2's prediction that an anti-China alliance will only come about after China alienates other nations. The table above shows that that much has been done. Now Chinese diplomacy will have to work extra to make all those super sweet special deals with these countries to neutralize their own actions.

And to think a little reasonableness and modesty and all this expense and effort would not have been required at all.

It is instructive to note that practically all countries of any substance in Asia and their allies either do not like China (due to its recent behaviour) or are neutral ( but here also it would not take much to bring them on the other side for e.g Malaysia and Indonesia would strongly oppose any pan-Chinese rhetoric which may agitate their substantial Chinese minorities and resource rich Siberia is Russia's weak point). The only allies won by hardworking Chinese diplomacy surprisingly turn out to be all basket cases or nut cases !!

Makes one begin to doubt the much touted far sighted imperial and Confucian wisdom which it seems is the monopoly of Chinese state craft.

It does seem that China has amply fulfilled Cody 2's prediction that an anti-China alliance will only come about after China alienates other nations. The table above shows that that much has been done. Now Chinese diplomacy will have to work extra to make all those super sweet special deals with these countries to neutralize their own actions.

And to think a little reasonableness and modesty and all this expense and effort would not have been required at all.

The Chinese are alert to the possibility that Cody suggested and will take steps to prevent it. Chinese money does talk but there is quite a lot of bribery for influence in this area going on. Australia and Japan have been active as have the USA in the past. China has very deep pockets but Australia and the others have been spending for a while and the Chinese have a decade or two of catch-up to play.

Australia has chosen to side with the USA and has put our money and men where our mouth is. While I think that Richard Armitage is a great and knowledgeable man, I do not see the US getting into a war over Taiwan. If the US does not get into a war over Taiwan, then there is not argument or decision to make.

Australia is a lot richer because of Chinese trade and investment but all the defence treaties, arrangements and purchases are to do with the USA. Australia would not like to go to war over Taiwan. Australia would go to war much more willingly to assist Japan, the Philippines or Malaysia.

Australia has been planning for a clash with China for decades, since Korea. Nothing much has changed yet but it may over time.

One thing, while China has been developing her relationship with Australia she has also been developing her intel network within Australia but it is a two way mirror. Australia has her own spies. Australian intelligence on China is nothing to lightly dismiss and it is pretty much all shared with the USA.

jim3au wrote:
All good articles Global and fairly reflect the situation(s).

The Chinese are alert to the possibility that Cody suggested and will take steps to prevent it. Chinese money does talk but there is quite a lot of bribery for influence in this area going on. Australia and Japan have been active as have the USA in the past. China has very deep pockets but Australia and the others have been spending for a while and the Chinese have a decade or two of catch-up to play.

Australia has chosen to side with the USA and has put our money and men where our mouth is. While I think that Richard Armitage is a great and knowledgeable man, I do not see the US getting into a war over Taiwan. If the US does not get into a war over Taiwan, then there is not argument or decision to make.

Australia is a lot richer because of Chinese trade and investment but all the defence treaties, arrangements and purchases are to do with the USA. Australia would not like to go to war over Taiwan. Australia would go to war much more willingly to assist Japan, the Philippines or Malaysia.

Australia has been planning for a clash with China for decades, since Korea. Nothing much has changed yet but it may over time.

One thing, while China has been developing her relationship with Australia she has also been developing her intel network within Australia but it is a two way mirror. Australia has her own spies. Australian intelligence on China is nothing to lightly dismiss and it is pretty much all shared with the USA.

The last thing China wants is to have to fight over Taiwan. China's strategy is to re-unify by peaceful means. That means eventual negotiation. I think things are moving in that direction.

As for the South China Sea, these are territorial disputes. There are claims and counter-claims. Again, they can be solved through negotiation-- give and take-- which China has done for its land-border disputes with almost all it neighbours.

The biggest threat is probably if Uncle Sam cannot accept its inevitable decline and try to force the issue before it no longer has the capability to do so.

Global bullyman wrote:The last thing China wants is to have to fight over Taiwan. China's strategy is to re-unify by peaceful means. That means eventual negotiation. I think things are moving in that direction.

As for the South China Sea, these are territorial disputes. There are claims and counter-claims. Again, they can be solved through negotiation-- give and take-- which China has done for its land-border disputes with almost all it neighbours.

The biggest threat is probably if Uncle Sam cannot accept its inevitable decline and try to force the issue before it no longer has the capability to do so.

Yes... all China take, and all neighbor give.

The UN has set out a plan whereby all claimants get a part of the disputed islands... the part closest to their current territories. The middle part is not apportioned, and is subject to further negotiations.

However, China has absolutely rejected this, and insists that 100% of the islands (and all the surrounding ocean, even well beyond the internationally-accepted territorial limits) are China's alone.

The only "negotiations" China has been doing is finding out whether a given nation can be cowed into surrendering its rights to the islands the UN says belong to it... and if it cannot be cowed, finding out how much it will take to buy off the appropriate politicians to sign over the islands.

“…Science as it is really practiced, caught up in the turmoil of personalities, with Truth always out of reach, and truths too often limping along, wounded in the turf wars and drive-bys of gangs of Ph.D.-totin’ grant-heads.”
Orson Scott Card: “Future on Ice”

I fully suspect that China is aware of the possibility, but I question if China actualy understands what it means to be respectful of it's neighbors. I wounder if they actuly understand what exactly it means to treat it's weaker counterparts as something more than nations that exist to simply be subjected to Chinese rule. I know the US has trouble with it, even with it's long history of reletivly freindly relations with it's current neighbors. I know France has trouble with it as well. I see nothing that suggests that China is going to find it easy to put asside it's nationalism, and then

I'm honestly not really aware of any big Chinese deals for border disputes that the Chinese have allowed to be NOT in favor of the Chinese. At most China has let any dispute that might not be decided in favor of Bejing lay untill a future date when they might get a redress in their favor.

I can honestly say that the way that China has played their hand vs. the various islands in the South China Sea looks like China has almost no respect for any other nation in the region. China appears to think that they can bully or bribe the various nations aginst each other. It seems to think that it really can pull off such a deal, and has the right to pull it off simply because of it's great size and power. We shall honestly see if that is really true.

Cody2 wrote:I'm honestly not really aware of any big Chinese deals for border disputes that the Chinese have allowed to be NOT in favor of the Chinese. At most China has let any dispute that might not be decided in favor of Bejing lay untill a future date when they might get a redress in their favor.

China's land border negotiations with neighbouring countries offer a startling revelation. The portion of the total disputed territory which China received as part of its boundary negotiations with 12 of its 14 neighbours are as follows:

Afghanistan - 0%

Tajikistan - 4%

Nepal - 6%

Burma - 18%

Kazakhstan - 22%

Mongolia - 29%

Kyrgyzstan - 32%

North Korea - 40%

Laos - 50%

Vietnam - 50%

Russia - 50%

Pakistan - 54%

(Pakistan was a special case in which China received 60% of the disputed land but transferred 1,942 square kilometers of separate land to Pakistan. In Tajikistan’s case, the figure refers to the 28,000 sq.km of the disputed Pamir mountain range, other sectors were divided evenly. In the case of Vietnam, in addition to this settlement, China transferred, apparently without any strings attached, the White Dragon Tail Island to (North) Vietnam in 1957)

Cody2 wrote:I'm honestly not really aware of any big Chinese deals for border disputes that the Chinese have allowed to be NOT in favor of the Chinese. At most China has let any dispute that might not be decided in favor of Bejing lay untill a future date when they might get a redress in their favor.

China's land border negotiations with neighbouring countries offer a startling revelation. The portion of the total disputed territory which China received as part of its boundary negotiations with 12 of its 14 neighbours are as follows:

Afghanistan - 0%

Tajikistan - 4%

Nepal - 6%

Burma - 18%

Kazakhstan - 22%

Mongolia - 29%

Kyrgyzstan - 32%

North Korea - 40%

Laos - 50%

Vietnam - 50%

Russia - 50%

Pakistan - 54%

(Pakistan was a special case in which China received 60% of the disputed land but transferred 1,942 square kilometers of separate land to Pakistan. In Tajikistan’s case, the figure refers to the 28,000 sq.km of the disputed Pamir mountain range, other sectors were divided evenly. In the case of Vietnam, in addition to this settlement, China transferred, apparently without any strings attached, the White Dragon Tail Island to (North) Vietnam in 1957)

How about discussing equal even handedness with respect to the South China Sea and the nations bordering it. There is much more at stake there.

bgile wrote:How about discussing equal even handedness with respect to the South China Sea and the nations bordering it. There is much more at stake there.

What have I said that is not "even-handed"?

I think Jim is right in saying that China "does not believe that she should treat other Asian nations as equals." But is THAT peculiar to China and the Chinese? At least, Cody2 admits: "I know the US has trouble with it, even with it's long history of relatively friendly relations with it's current neighbors. I know France has trouble with it as well."

Despite the fact that it does not treat its weaker neighbours as equals, China has proved to be willing to compromise with them and, in general, settle for less than half of the disputed territories-- As the list given by the Indian blogger shows. Can you give me similar lists on European (i.e. white) powers' settlements with their weaker neighbours, especially with NON-European neighbours?